Today, On 13th September, The Supreme Court agreed to hear a fresh petition seeking to classify freebies offered by political parties as corrupt practices. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, has issued notices to the Union government and the Election Commission regarding the petition. The plea was filed by Bengaluru resident B Lakshmidevi, represented by advocate Balaji Srinivasan.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court agreed to review a new petition seeking to classify the freebies promised by political parties before elections as corrupt practices.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, issued notices to the Union government and the Election Commission regarding the petition filed by B Lakshmidevi of Bengaluru, represented by advocate Balaji Srinivasan.
Read Also: Congress Election Manifesto Not ‘Corrupt Practices’ : Karnataka High Court
The court also directed that this plea be tagged with a similar petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
The petition argues that to maintain the integrity of the electoral process and responsible use of public funds,
“It is essential to establish clear and enforceable regulations governing party manifestos and preventing unrealistic and financially burdensome promises.”
It seeks a declaration that promising freebies, especially in the form of cash, to be funded by the public exchequer if the party wins, should be deemed a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner also requested that the Election Commission be directed to take swift and effective measures to prevent political parties from offering freebies during the pre-election period.
The plea argued that such promises, especially when aimed at specific groups, create an unfair advantage, violating the equality principle outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Citing the example of Karnataka, the petitioner claimed that unregulated promises of freebies place a heavy and unaccounted burden on public funds.
Additionally, there is no mechanism to ensure that these pre-election promises, which often secure votes, are actually fulfilled.
The petition also challenged the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Subramaniam Balaji’s case, asserting that the judgement incorrectly interpreted Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which applies to individual candidates but not political parties, as not being the correct law.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATE
